A lawyer can sometimes get out of hot water by voluntarily surrendering his/her license to practice law. A bit later (usually after getting out of rehab) she/he can petition to be reinstated. Its usually granted if the lawyer sounds contrite enough.

All of the events in this case were spread across different courts in different parts of the country. It wasn't until defendants started to get a look at the big picture-- thank you to those who made the facts available-- that any single judge would have known what was going on. Even so it is necessary to come up with a legal theory that would allow the evidence of misbehavior to be introduced. (I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I just haven't given it much thought. A party can't just introduce evidence willy-nilly, it has to be allowed by the Rules of Evidence in the Court where the case is being heard.)

I always thought it rather creepy that a certain small town in Ohio I passed through put up road signs bragging about their participation in a child fingerprinting program. It was done to-- I don't know why it was done. Maybe to tell Mr. Stranger Danger to go down the road and leave these children to the family, friends and neighbors who are most likely to abuse children.

Darn, I voted early and have been tossing campaign flyers without looking at them. Saturday I had so many in my post office box that I couldn't get my mail out of the box without ripping some. Now I'll never know if my neighbors know I have a perfect score for showing up at the polls.

Oops, maybe they do know. I voted early because all of the election day poll workers are my neighbors.

The legal definition of consideration when discussing a contract or agreement does not necessarily mean hard cash or actual goods. Consideration is an item of value but it can be as vague and hard to quantify as "natural love and affection" owed from one person to another rather than explicit payment or even barter. Also it can be that one party agrees to undertake some act for the other person as consideration.

He is claiming willful and malicious trademark infringement on the bloggers which is different from innocent infringement. This suggests that the bloggers should have known about his trademark. I know I always check the US trademark on books I read in case I might want to know if it is owned by some crazy person before I post a review in which I-- oh, might mention the name of the book.

The christian genre probably explains why I didn't recognize many of the names. This isn't Shawn Lamb's first rodeo though. Most of her craziness has been kept to Amazon forums. She had a fit over a two star review of one of her books and also wrote something about how some christian reviewers were "downright nasty" in their reviews. I think by this she meant that some christian reviewer did not love her book. She has a history of trying to rewrite internet history. Total waste as anyone who has been around a while could tell her.

I'm not seeing the problem. I just checked some authors-- Austen, Anne Bronte, and some more obscure works: The Pleasures of a Single Life, Or, The Miseries of Matrimony Occasionally writ upon the many divorces lately granted by Parliament. With The choice, or, ... to the beaus against the next vacation. [Kindle Edition] by John Pomfret and everything seems to be where it should be.

I just downloaded that last one, looks like an interesting historic document/pamphlet (34 pages).

I've known a few attorneys who were sanctioned and it was very unusual with a little contrition for the sanctions to not be reduced on appeal. Maybe Stone didn't know about the contrition part of appealing sanctions.

My Jack Russells loved to travel and occasionally would jump in a stranger's car if a door was open. I would have to retrieve them with apologies. I could see one wanting a train ride. Love the airplane ears in the picture with his owner. He did not want to be held right then.

At least they didn't try to charge the other kids with identity theft. Shame the teen and parents had to go this far to get the page taken down. I would be as much disturbed by the imputation of racist beliefs in the Youtube video as anything. That's something that could turn around and bite the kid a few years later when she is looking for a job.

If the kids who did this are minors then parents are responsible for their actions in Georgia, at least up to $10,000 damage. That's how the parents got in there.

The faq is interesting. I liked the bit about being allowed (ney, encouraged) to share your copy of the books with your kids under the age of 18. When the kids turn 18 though they have to buy their own copy. Wha?